thomaswoodfandomcom-20200216-history
User talk:C.Syde65
Welcome Hi, welcome to ! Thanks for your edit to the Talk:Percy page. Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! OrigamiAirEnforcer (talk) 2006 Scruffey Model At one point earlier this year, The trivia section that the 2006 model's orange wheels were inaccurate, I don't think they're inaccurate at all, I think they gave Scruffey's 2006 model orange wheels is to represent rusted wheels. What do you think? Squadronfire4552 (talk) 02:19, August 9, 2016 (UTC) Year categories Can I please ask you to stop adding year categories to the pages? I'm aware that you didn't start it and I'm in approval too, but what has been done is so messy and convoluted. No agreement has been given from the other admins yet so even though I'd like to add year categories which would seriously only say the year and not this "Introduced in" and "Discontinued in" business, the action cannot go ahead. Jdogman (talk) 02:35, October 20, 2016 (UTC) :I thought OAE gave his approval. ToyCollector2 (talk) 03:29, October 20, 2016 (UTC) ::I thought so too. And FDMG certainly didn't seem opposed to adding year categories to pages either. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 03:31, October 20, 2016 (UTC) ::For now, observe an indefinite moratorium on adding the categories guys. I will converse with FDMG and JDM further over this. OrigamiAirEnforcer (talk) 04:37, October 20, 2016 (UTC) :::I'm sorry that it has taken me this long to write a response back but I found what happened was overwhelming, plus I was occupied with some important things during that month. Just because you and ToyCollector2 did not get a response from an admin about an approval for it, it does not mean that answer is yes. I've also been interested in producing year categories, but there has been several discussions about it and no unanimous approval across the admins, and I'm annoyed that it only took mass edits from you, Boomhaur00, and ToyCollector2 for the decision to suddenly be approved using a manual of style of putting both long worded categories for year introduced and "retired" which had never been decided upon. I don't understand why it is necessarily to group all the items which have been retired into categories as well, as it is far more easier to put categories for the introduced year as well as being the most important year. We also still seem to be having an issue with the retired year categories as even though some of us have had discussions about it and I thought we came to a conclusion, an extra year keeps getting added to the retired year, which is inconsistent with the style that Learning Curve used for the years and is bound to cause confusion. Learning Curve's use of the retired year means the last year that it was produced, not the year afterward where it was not sold. So if it was sold for one year, it is introduced and discontinued in that year. That is why I'd rather prefer the year categories to say, "2017", "2016", and so on, and in the category page, each heading will say, "This category is for products introduced in (year)." I'm aware you have not been active for a little while but the other admins are most likely going to read this and will have their say as well. Jdogman (talk) 05:44, January 14, 2017 (UTC) Mini-modding Please leave telling other users what you can and can't do, like you did with Corner gas, to the admins. They're not going to listen to someone who just have the same editing privileges. Thanks. Jdogman (talk) 02:04, January 30, 2017 (UTC) :The main reason I left that message on that user's talk page was because I felt that if I didn't, then that user would continue adding unnecessary categories to articles. I initially left their edits alone, but when I discovered that an admin was undoing their edits, I decided to finish undoing the ones the admin hadn't undone, since they were nonexistent categories. :I'm not sure if I would consider leaving that sort of message to be mini-modding. Isn't mini-modding when a user tries to assume the authority of a chat/discussion moderator? I know that's one thing it means, but I thought that was all that it meant. But whatever it is, I'll refrain from doing it in future, since it's clear that leaving those messages doesn't meet with your approval, because you wouldn't have messaged me if it wasn't the case. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 02:31, January 30, 2017 (UTC) ::I understand that your intentions were good. To me, it seemed FlyingDuckManGenesis had the pages under control after reverting that user's edits. To me, I've considered mini-modding to be another user telling another that hasn't been following rules or the manual of style what to do, which is what I interpreted here. Again, I understood your intentions. The only other way I can see of going around it is just perhaps suggesting to the other user rather than straightly saying "please refrain". I apologize if I have come across as blunt or authoritative and I hope this doesn't deter you from contributing here. Jdogman (talk) 09:57, January 30, 2017 (UTC) :::Indeed it doesn't. :) ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 09:59, January 30, 2017 (UTC) Re:Corner Gas Dear C.Syde65, Thank you for informing me of the edits that Corner gas has made. Rest assured, I gave him a week's block for disobeying the warning he was sent and continuing to add the categories. FDMG, 5:34 P.M. EST Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis (talk) 22:34, January 30, 2017 (UTC) : Dear C.Syde65, : Thank you for informing me of the edits that Corner gas has made. I sent him a warning asking him to stop, and if he continues these edits after that warning, I will block him again. : FDMG, 8:24 P.M. EST Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis (talk) 01:24, February 8, 2017 (UTC) Re: NWRBen Thank you for your report; I have tended to the issues that NWRBen's vandalism caused. Apparently he was a sockpuppet of Petrichor51411 too, based on further statements. The appropriate actions have been taken and I am mulling over making a request to the Wikia global team for a site-wide ban for the user. Unfortunate given that contributions were fine up until the rule breaking started. OrigamiAirEnforcer (talk) 22:54, May 23, 2017 (UTC) :Yeah, true. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 23:24, May 23, 2017 (UTC) RE: Using rollback on a non-disruptive edit It was merely an error. I was attempting to fix it up because the title of the page had not been fixed after a spammer changed it to a rude word. I was planning to work over the entire article anyway so I could use the "you may" template, besides renaming images. My track record shows that I do not have interests in replacing content with racial slurs as the next edits easily show, so I'm surprised you got alerted about this. --Jdogman (talk) 11:56, November 7, 2017 (UTC) :Yeah, I was notified about it in my g-mails. I read them regularly to keep my info-box as empty as possible. And where I come from, people don't like it when rollback is used for anything other than reverting vandalism, spam, or otherwise malicious edits. Since that's what the rollback tool was designed for in the first place. For reverting edits that were made in bad faith and don't require an edit summary when reverting, because the reason for reverting is already clear. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 20:19, November 7, 2017 (UTC) ::Like I said, I used it in error. I was trying to use rollback to take the page back to the time before there was even a spammer, as the title of the page was still not fixed. I opted to instead, edit the page from that particular revision. --Jdogman (talk) 12:31, November 8, 2017 (UTC) Undoing the Skarloey Edit Just thought I'd let you know, images need to have the "file:" prefix or else they won't appear. This happened with your edit on the Skarloey page, so I had to undo it (but I kept the other parts of your edit intact). TWR98 (talk) 22:18, February 19, 2018 (UTC) The image I got the image from the 1995 yearbook from this wiki since I don't own that yearbook I don't have a pen higher quality one sadly I'd like to add that we recently got higher quality scans of the 1995 (and 1996) yearbooks on the wiki, but they're not mine. They were sent to me over Twitter. The closest you're gonna get is here on the 4th image. It's not perfect but it's a small step up. TWR98 (talk) 01:47, March 7, 2018 (UTC) RE: Switch Tower In regards to the debated existence of a Traction Rails Switch Tower, yes, it does exist. Due to its discontinuation that year, Traction Rails editions were very hard to come by, but they did indeed exist. This is also the case with destinations such as Wellsworth Station. Overseas, Traction Rails versions of these destinations were more common. The 2002 version of the Twist & Turn Battery-Powered Set included a Traction Rails Switch Tower, which was the easiest way to get it in the States. I have a few questions regarding your copy: #Was it purchased brand new in box or purchased used in box? #Are you certain it wasn't old stock placed in newer packaging? Many other items have done similar things to this (2002 Peter Sam in the Narrow Gauge Engines gift pack for example). TWR98 (talk) 01:05, March 11, 2018 (UTC) :It's possible that it was an older switch tower in newer packaging. And even though pretty much all my track or almost all my track dates from 2002 at the earliest, while I was a collector of Thomas Wooden Railway toys, I still ended up with a couple of pieces of clickity-clack track here and there. :I definitely remember my Switch Tower coming in a 2002 box, even though it was about 15 years ago during the 2002 Christmas Holidays when I was only 7 years old, I remember because it had Bill or Ben on the front of the box, and I erroneously assumed that Bill and Ben must be included in the box, but one of my relatives told me that they weren't actually going to be in the box, they were just there for the example pictures. :As a collector of Thomas Wooden Railway trains and sets, I had a total of two sets. Conductor's Figure 8 Set (2002 version) and Let's Have a Race Set (2003 version). However my Bertie had 2002 on his wheels so he was actually the 2002 Bertie, and I think both sets came with a 2001 Sir Topham Hatt. If I remember correctly, the sign posts etc. had 2001 on them. But almost all the track was traction rail track. :In 2002 when I was 7 years old, I remember getting Skarloey for my 7th birthday. One of the Skarloeys looked different so I chose the different one. In selections, back when I was younger, I had a thing for choosing the odd ones out. Had I known that this was a 1998 Skarloey, I probably would have chosen one of the newer ones. The 1998 Skarloey as you probably will know featured a smaller face, no name on his chassis, a wooden funnel and head, and darker and pinker livery. :Unlike the other toys that I collected, this Skarloey had paint that was prone to chipping. I didn't mind this back when I was younger, but it definitely inspired me not to let any of my other Thomas trains get as chipped as my Skarloey did. The chips weren't really bad for an owner that didn't play rough with his trains, but there were still quite a few chips in comparison to the rest of the models I got. :What's weird is that my Skarloey, despite dating from 1998, came in a 2002 packet with a 2002 character card, and probably a 2002 catalog, though it was so long ago, I can't remember which catalog belonged to him. My BoCo, despite dating from 2003 when BoCo was first reintroduced, came with 2002 on his wheels, and a 1998 or 1999 (can't remember which because I forgot which catalog belonged to him) catalog. :My 2004 Emily for some reason came with a 2003 catalog, even though the catalog dated from before Emily was introduced. So yeah, there have proven to be some packaging inconsistencies. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 01:31, March 11, 2018 (UTC) Early 2000 Models My impression regarding those was that the older box style was used only for new models of that year (Trevor, Rickety, Arched Viaduct etc.). The names are an odd case. They only appeared on models that were new for 1999, like the Scotsman, or Neil, or the NW Brakevan. Other models didn't get them until 2001. Hope this helps clears things up a bit. TWR98 (talk) 04:09, March 11, 2018 (UTC) I can't take a screenshot of the toy because for one, I already own it, and two, there was only one picture of the trains and track and it was a mess and he is not visible, and three, I can't send you a picture here, so please conract me for the picture at ryryjoseph05@gmail.com. And I don't know if you noticed but please look at the talk page on Annie and Clarabel, I have asked another factory error related question there as well. ArlesburghRyan1014Studios (talk) 10:00, May 17, 2018 (UTC)RyanTheTankEngine 1014 Regarding the SCruffey image I replaced the previous version as I believe the one I provided is higher quality in terms of resolution and clarity. TWRAddictYT (talk) 02:46, October 13, 2018 (UTC) RE: S.C. Ruffey Image I see what you mean now. I preferred the alternative image and thought that anyone who wants to see the older picture can look at the scans of Yearbooks and pamphlets. Seeing as neither of them are prototypes though, and I like giving spotlight to official pictures, perhaps I will go back to the older image. It has a smaller size but the image is still clear, and for some reason it's hard to find any other picture of it online. Jdogman (talk) 22:01, November 4, 2018 (UTC) RE: Random Question out of interest It would be quite obviously a fan edit and the biggest giveaway is the funnel and text on the tanks. TWRAddictYT (talk) 00:51, April 3, 2019 (UTC)